You're viewing part of a thread.
It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.
Liberalism and fascism were banned.
So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.
Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.
It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.
It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.
Indeed, Socialism has been deemed "authoritarian" by foreign countries.
So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.
Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don't have to defend fascism. It's the paradox of tolerance.
It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.
This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.
Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.
I wonder why something like the Soviet Union under Stalin would be called authoritarian. It's preposterous!
Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.
It's just that they banned every other party.
This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.
Not so much tolerance for those viewpoints under Stalin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Weirdly even this site puts it very bluntly: https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm
Based on the link I would've expected something else, but they are pretty upfront about it. Interesting website.
I urge you to pick up a history book on the Soviet Union if you think Stalin made up the entire political apparatus. Even the CIA disagrees with you there, because it was obvious.
Initially governing as part of a collective leadership, Stalin consolidated power to become dictator by the 1930s; he formalized his Leninist interpretation of Marxism as Marxism-Leninism, while the totalitarian political system he established became known as Stalinism.
Stalin's Soviet Union has been characterised as a totalitarian state,[673] with Stalin its authoritarian leader.[674] Various biographers have described him as a dictator,[675] an autocrat,[676] or accused him of practising Caesarism.[677] Montefiore argued that while Stalin initially ruled as part of a Communist Party oligarchy, the Soviet government transformed from this oligarchy into a personal dictatorship in 1934,[678] with Stalin only becoming "absolute dictator" between March and June 1937, when senior military and NKVD figures were eliminated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
I mean we talked if it was a totalitarian dictatorship or not. Sure does seem like it was.
Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?
But he does seem to have had a total control of the state through his position, control of tools such as NKVD, fear, intimidation, cult of personality, purging of opponents and so on. Unless you think it doesn't count unless you have an official position of dictator and has been named as such by the Roman senate, of course.
He did not have total control. If you don't agree with Soviet records, then let the CIA themselves explain in an internal, never meant to be revealed document. Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen. He had power as the head of state, but it was neither absolute nor all-encompasing.
It seems most historians disagree with your thought here, as shown in the earlier quotes. You claim he was often contested, did not have the ability to make anything happen and so on, but that doesn't seem to have been the reality. Even this document you shared just says it was "exaggerated", not that he didn't have those powers. But most considering his rule seem to have labeled him as a dictator and it's very easy to see why.
If you don’t agree with Soviet records
Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.
I never said he was powerless, I said he did not have sole control nor all-encompassing power. He was the head of state, of course he had power. The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here. The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.
Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.
Soviet Records on democratic processes and political structuring.
I never said he was powerless
Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen
"Did not have the ability to make anything happen" would make him seem very powerless.
The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here
The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.
My mythology of just the normal historians' view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.